Tribunal overturns penalty on assessee due to procedural errors, stresses fairness and legal principles

Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta Versus ACIT 17 (3), Erstwhile- DCIT-12 (1), Mumbai

Mrs. Sonali D. Mehta Versus ACIT 17 (3), Erstwhile- DCIT-12 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues:
1. Challenge to penalty on technical grounds - initiation for inaccurate particulars of income but levied for concealment of income.
2. Proper application of mind in penalty proceedings - specific limb not mentioned in notice under section 274 read with section 271.
3. Justification for penalty imposition - change of heads of income not attracting penalty.
4. Disclosure of particulars in annual accounts for disallowance under section 14A - no penalty attraction.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to penalty on technical grounds
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2008-09. The assessee contended that the penalty was confirmed despite being initiated for inaccurate particulars of income but levied for concealment of income. The penalty notice was issued without specifying the particular limb, leading to a challenge on technical grounds. The penalty was imposed for concealment of income, which the assessee argued was against established judicial principles.

Issue 2: Proper application of mind in penalty proceedings
The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars of income but did not specify the particular limb in the notice under section 274 read with section 271. The penalty was imposed for concealment of income, creating a procedural flaw as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the specific charge on which the penalty was levied. The Tribunal held that the penalty order, in this case, was bad in law due to the violation of the principle of natural justice.

Issue 3: Justification for penalty imposition
The assessee argued that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not attracted merely due to a change in the heads of income by the AO. Citing various decisions, the assessee contended that penalty imposition was not warranted in this scenario. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, emphasizing that a mere change in the heads of income does not automatically attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).

Issue 4: Disclosure of particulars in annual accounts for disallowance under section 14A
The assessee maintained that no penalty should be imposed for the disallowance made under section 14A as all particulars were disclosed in the annual accounts submitted to the revenue authorities. Relying on specific case laws, the assessee argued against penalty imposition in this regard. The Tribunal, considering the disclosure of particulars, concurred with the assessee's position and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the procedural irregularities in the penalty imposition and the lack of grounds for penalty attraction based on the issues raised by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, highlighting the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and legal principles in penalty proceedings.